In previous NinjaLaw post, the summary judgment motion on Estate of Scott W. Thompson, regarding death on a 2006 Kawasaki Ninja Motorcycle, was denied in part and granted in part, February 11, 2013: “action proceed to trial only on the “design defect” claim against KHI and KMC in Count I and the prayer for “punitive damages” on that underlying cause of action in Count VIII.”
Since then, there have been three subsequent motions decided by District Judge Mark W. Bennett, in this case No. C 11-4026-MWB
THE ESTATE OF SCOTT W. THOMPSON,
by the Personal Representatives,
RANDY W. THOMPSON and VICKY J. THOMPSON,
and RANDY W. THOMPSON and VICKY J. THOMPSON,
KAWASAKI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD.,
and KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.,
February 25, 2013 – Pretrial Motions – includes arguments about Hearsay exceptions and whether after 45 minutes the statements of a lay witness to the accident could still be considered “excited utterances” and also regarding “recollections of statements on internet fora or in any other ‘enthusiast publications’ related to motorcycles.” With a footnote7 suggesting this may be “double hearsay” but that was not argued.
The Motion To Clarify concerns the scope of evidence and argument that Kawasaki may offer to show that an alleged “design defect” in the 2007 Ninja ZX-10R motorcycle that Scott Thompson was riding at the time of his accident was not a cause of his death almost three years after the accident.
March 14, 2013 – Post-deadline pretrial motions about more hearsay objections regarding use of expert depositions from Kawasaki’s previous expert:
In its Motion In Limine, Kawasaki did not identify a single statement in Mr. Okabe’s deposition that was ostensibly an “admission,” but was not “to the facts in the case” or not connected to the case by more than conjecture. On the other hand, in their Resistance and in the highlighted portions of Mr. Okabe’s deposition, the Thompsons have shown that Mr. Okabe’s Rule 30(b)(6) statements are “admissions to the facts in the case,” concerning the development and performance of the 2007 Ninja ZX-10R motorcycle and the steering damper in it, and those matters are plainly at issue in the case, so that they are connected to it by more than conjecture. Id. This objection to the use of Mr. Okabe’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition in the Thompsons’ case-in-chief on the ground that the deposition is hearsay not within a Rule 801(d)(2) exception is, consequently, overruled.
So all this is months ago, does anyone know if this case is still on Judge Bennett’s docket? Is there a trial coming or have the parties already settled? maybe more motions?